... that except for the reference to heavy suitcases the entire scenarios is 100% legal. It's what happens in our own nations capital every day (you get this legislation through if we get this funding approved).
It's called politics. And the boat bit (without the suitcases) is called lobbying.
The only potential negative here is the projected savings of 10's of millions of pesos. If the government looses face because of that they may actually put open source back years in official adoption of it as a standard.
No, I'm not advocating piracy here. Your wording is more correct than mine.
The point here is that if they need to ever run any Windows programs the savings may evaporate...and perhaps the cost will be 100's of millions of pesos to make it work right.
And if they go Linux they won't have to upgrade every 3 to 4 years? That assumption could be fatally flawed.
Many times the upgrade path is paved in application requirements.. i.e.: you must have build X with patch Y to run this application.
Over 3 to 4 years I'll wager you'll have to upgrade that Linux install at least twice -- that is if you run any software at all on it.
Of course we are working in a windows vacuum here -- i.e.: they will not need to run any windows applications. If they need to run any at all then you must assume you will need to install, support and update a windows VM of some sort -- and your right back in the same issue with windows updates you are today made much worse by the fact that MS can break your solution at the drop of a hat.
So we are talking maybe 1 to 9 million dollars max..... that's very easy to soak up in consulting and additional configuration charges on a large install.
I hope someone looked over the numbers very, very carefully.
...only support a maximum savings of ~20 per user per month of use.
And that doesn't include the loss of the ability to run the thousands of Windows only applications or the additional cost of configuring the Linux machines to support vertical market Windows applications -- it can be an ugly world in Windows to begin with for many of them.
Most models assume tech support and maintenance (software, hardware, etc.). Even if the numbers for hiring Linux professionals, a rare and relatively expensive breed still, are equal to that for hiring Windows trained professionals (of which decent ones are somewhat rare themselves) the savings in licensing are not horribly significant.
Where do the alledged savings come from then? Better management of the system (if you have a good sys-ad it will be cheaper, but you will need to pay the sys-ad well)? Longer life for the hardware (will only be proved in a workstation environment 3 to 4 years down the road)?
Slashdot Mirror
It's called politics. And the boat bit (without the suitcases) is called lobbying.
...other than to train the MS management, fast learners actually, how to achieve their goals in a more smooth manner.
The only potential negative here is the projected savings of 10's of millions of pesos. If the government looses face because of that they may actually put open source back years in official adoption of it as a standard.
...and it'll be a shame if MS has learned that lesson from the anti-trust battle....
The fact of the licensing war is that this can be a trap that could cost 100's of millions of pesos to rectify.
MS may be nasty to deal with but the Government is much worse when they think you've stepped in their territory.
The point here is that if they need to ever run any Windows programs the savings may evaporate.. .and perhaps the cost will be 100's of millions of pesos to make it work right.
Many times the upgrade path is paved in application requirements.. i.e.: you must have build X with patch Y to run this application.
Over 3 to 4 years I'll wager you'll have to upgrade that Linux install at least twice -- that is if you run any software at all on it.
Of course we are working in a windows vacuum here -- i.e.: they will not need to run any windows applications. If they need to run any at all then you must assume you will need to install, support and update a windows VM of some sort -- and your right back in the same issue with windows updates you are today made much worse by the fact that MS can break your solution at the drop of a hat.
I hope someone looked over the numbers very, very carefully.
...those models are based on LIST cost of MS Software.. .which I've never paid to begin with and I doubt anyone else has either.
And that doesn't include the loss of the ability to run the thousands of Windows only applications or the additional cost of configuring the Linux machines to support vertical market Windows applications -- it can be an ugly world in Windows to begin with for many of them.
Most models assume tech support and maintenance (software, hardware, etc.). Even if the numbers for hiring Linux professionals, a rare and relatively expensive breed still, are equal to that for hiring Windows trained professionals (of which decent ones are somewhat rare themselves) the savings in licensing are not horribly significant.
Where do the alledged savings come from then? Better management of the system (if you have a good sys-ad it will be cheaper, but you will need to pay the sys-ad well)? Longer life for the hardware (will only be proved in a workstation environment 3 to 4 years down the road)?